5323. You know that the farmer has an opportunity for sending down a sample by way of check?—Yes, but that is a needless effort, the farmer being so far from the base and not being an adept at writing.

5324. Is it not a fact that before the Pool, when the farmers had to deal with the millers and the acquiring agents, the farmers had to accept the dockage fixed?—They could take the wheat away. They were always satisfied. If the wheat is not fit for milling the average farmer prefers to feed it to his stock.

5325. You say that before the Pool there were no disputes in regard to dockage. Do you think the present system of appointing a farmer an agent for accepting the wheat tends to create discontent?—Yes, if the farmer is not satisfied with the agent at the siding he should have the right to send his wheat straight through to the depot.

5326. Then it would be necessary to sample the bags at the depot?—It is the system all over the world.

5327. You referred to the shipping difficulty. Do you not think the difficulty has been brought about by the withdrawal of ships required in other directions on account of the war?—That has a great deal to do with it, but it is not all. We must have better shipping facilities if we are to secure due increase in the wheat yield.

5328. By Mr. BROWN: Do you think that open sheds properly roofed will provide good storage for wheat for the next two or three years?—Yes, and if it has a dry bottom and is well aerated, it is about the best form of storage for wheat. However, keep the wheat long enough and weevil will be created.

5329. For how long could wheat be stored in this district without liability to weevil?—Anything up to 12 months.

5330. Have you had experience of silos?—Only through reading.

5331. In connection with gristing, the miller enjoys certain advantages apart altogether from the 7d. per bushel payment?—Not now. When they were grinding for farmers and merchants, they had 2lbs. to the bushel or 100lbs. to every ton of flour for waste.

5332. But is not the miller getting his bags free?—There is some arrangement about bags and about storage, and the Government have to take up the flour.

5333. By Mr. HARRISON: Have you known of any local wheat being docked which you would not have docked?—I cannot say that. The wheat was docked 1s. 6d., but I did not see the wheat. I have every reason to believe that it should not have been docked. The farmer would never have sent it in had he known how it was going to be treated.

(The witness retired.)

JOSHUA MILLS, M.L.C., sworn and examined:

5334. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to put some information before the Commission?—I had not given the matter serious thought until yesterday afternoon. I can give you some errors and omissions of the acquiring agency system. In April last I was at Dalwallinu where there were two wheat stacks of approximately 8,000 bags each. One of them was broken into whilst I was there and a nice pool of water under the stack was revealed. The dunnage was partly submerged. The water had been up as far as the wheat and the bags had rotted underneath, with the result that the wheat spewed out into the mud and slush.

5335. By Mr. BROWN: Was that 1916-17 wheat?—I think so. I thought it indicated gross negligence on the part of the man who selected the site, because there was no water near the stack in other directions. I cannot say whose stack it was. I returned to Perenjori and there were several fires on the site of the old wheat dump. The wheat had been removed. Apparently the stack had been pulled away back and other rubbish had accumulated and the wheat lost in the handling had intermixed with the rubbish. It appeared to me that the wheat might have been given to the farmers for the use of their stock. Instead of that it was burnt. At Beatty's siding, about eight miles beyond Mullewa, there are a few farmers, some of whom harvested that wheat in December. A portion of it was carted in December, but of course most of it during January and February. It was not taken delivery of at the siding nor lifted from there by the railways until the first week in April.

5336. By the CHAIRMAN: Was there any agent at the siding?—No. During that time from five to six inches of rain fell upon the wheat.

5337. By Mr. HARRISON: Have you any idea of the aggregate stacked at that siding?—About 3,000 bags. Eventually the farmers had to load it, for which I think they were remunerated, and had to re-bag a lot of it. The re-bagging was done by the farmers at their own expense. Another complaint: the wheat, of which this is the natural port, beyond Pintharuka is being railed to Fremantle. From there to Pintharuka is 105 miles, and from there to Perth it is considerably over 200 miles. It points to that centralisation of which we at Geraldton are everlastingly complaining.

5338. By Mr. BROWN: Is there much wheat grown at Pintharuka?—Not a great deal, but there are big possibilities. Morowa, five miles farther on, is one of the biggest wheat localities on the line.

5339. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Would it not be lifted from there to Spencer's Brook?—I do not know. I know it went south.

5340. By the CHAIRMAN: You say wheat went from Pintharuka?—No, but from south of Pintharuka. The wheat from Pintharuka comes here.

5341. Do you not think the wheat is sent south for its better protection, with a view of getting it farther inland?—It is grown inland; why not leave it there?

5342. They must send it to a depot?—I expect they have plenty of weevil where the wheat has gone to.

5343. Do you think wheat will store as well in this district as at any other place?—Seeing that we are 300 miles north of Spencer's Brook, I think the conditions here are more favourable to its keeping.

5344. Geraldton is suppose to be the worst district of all for weevil?—The reason is, the dumps are old ones that have been used for years past and the weevil is in the dunnage. If the stacks had been new, probably we should have had no trouble from the weevil.

5345. Was any wheat stacked where the present sheds are?—Not that I am aware of.

5346. You know that the weevil is in those sheds?—Perhaps because the farmers have been sending their old wheat with the new.

5347. By Mr. HARRISON: Have you any direct knowledge of that?—I could not particularise, but I know it has been done. I have had that from the farmers themselves.

5348. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Would not that be some which they had held up for seeding. Exactly so, and it has become infected with weevil.

5349. By the CHAIRMAN: You have seen all the stacks in various places. Have you seen any difference in respect to weevil here as against any other part of the State?—I have not examined the stacks in any other part of the State.

5350. Do you think that big shed at Bluff Point, empty at the present time, should be availed of for stacking wheat next year?—Most assuredly.

5351. You could not say to whom those Dalwallinu stacks belonged?—No.

5352. In 1916-17 the wheat was acquired at the agents' risk. In regard to Beatty's siding, where 3,000 bags were stored but no agent appointed, are you aware that there are in the agreement special conditions under which the agents had an extra price for handling quantities below 3,000 bags?—No.

5353. It shows the Scheme intended that an agent should be appointed for a site having 3,000 bags?—I believe an agent was appointed but did not fulfil his agreement.

5354. We will look into that on the files. Was there much wheat in the dirt at Perenjori?—It was nearly all burnt when I saw it. I do not know that any great wastage occurred, but it appeared to me to be a sin to burn it when the farmers could use it for fowls.

5355. By Mr. BROWN: Are there in the Murchison district many co-operative societies working in conjunction with the Westralian Farmers?—Personally I know of only three, namely at Mullewa, at Tenindewa, and that Northampton.

5356. I wondered whether most of the growers were working under co-operation, or individually?—I think they are acting individually.

(The witness retired.)